AUSTRALIAN VIEWS

Hokitika Guardian, 29 October 1932, Page 2

AUSTRALIAN VIEWS

RECEPTION OF TRADE AGREETMENfT. NUMEROUS TARIFF INCREASES. *' ’ SYDNEY, Oct. 20. It is difficult to indicate in exact terms the reception that has been givep in Australia to the publication of the “undisclosed formula ” of the Ottawa Agreement, and the introduction of the tariff schedule to give effect to it. It is certain, nevertheless, that the anti-Ottawa pphtinal camp has been thrown into a state of confusion. This is due to the rovelation that there will be no reduction of any of the existing protective duties. . Actually, there are 440 tariff increases where an equally long list of tariff reductions was expected. And so it is that the critics have been robbed of their chief weapons, though they are doing thenbest to manufacture some more. For some weeks there was an attempt to create an impression that as a result of the Ottawa agreement the. secondary industries of Australia would be dealt a death blow, but it is necessary now suddenly to change the ground of attack. Of course, this presents no difficulty to the Federal Labour Party and its leader ((Mr Scullin). Labour has always been opposed to Ottawa, and there is just a suggestion that that opposition was dictated by the fact that the Conference was of an Imperialistic nature. Anyway, it was not- sl>onsired bv the Labour Party, therefore it could have nothing to commend it. The Labour Party sees in the agreement a threat to Australian industry, but does not attempt to justify that view, which has so little to support it. Tho actual changes in the tariff cannot affect Australian industry, if that industry is conducted on economical lines with the idea of giving the public an article at a reasonable price, and being satisfied with a reasonable profit. Labour ha® appealed to the manufacturers to ‘“stand up with us against the policy of the Bruce-Lvons Government now declared to be the destruction of effective protection of Australia industries, and the substitution therefore of the folly of limit-

ing that protection so that the great capitalists of Britain may equally compete for our trade in our own domestic market. Tt is a reversal of the traditional policy of the Commonwealth behind the backs of the electors, and without even prior consideration of Parliament itself.” So far there has been no rush of manufacturers to the Labour banner. BENEFITS OF THE AGREEMENT. As a. matter of fact manufacturer can find little on whl'di to ha.se a substantial protest. Britain lias been given fewer concessions that it was anticipated would be the case, and manufacturers as a whole arc inclined! to regard the agreement patriotically. They say that its Empire significance cannot be overlooked, and that if it. is traing to mean a more prosperous Empire it should he accepted with all

the views of the Minister for Customs (Mr Gullett), . who was one of the delegates to Ottawa. It was impossible at this stage, he said toestimate in pounds, shillings and, pence, the benefits of the agreement, but every man, woman, and child in Australia, in one way or another, would be better off.- The outstanding fact was that surplus stocks of Australian. produce would, automatically be removed from the market. That might mean the difference between ruin and prosperity for hundreds of producers, and. in turn would h -ve a heartening effect on the price of land. . The cumulative result of. that tendency in all-producing (industries was bound to lead to; allround increase in price levels to benefit to every member of the community. Th'e; -direct m,nd indirect gain would be incalculable, -and would! certainly amount, ot millions a year. j .

It is generally .admitted in political circles that Australia received gjeater benefits than any of the other Dominions, and credit for this achievement is given to-.Mr Bruce,, who is openly regarded in most influential circles as Australia’s greatest statesman to-day, - It is difficult to see, however, why New Zealand should- fear Australia. ‘lt is generally .regretted that New 'Zealand ' opinion-y.or at least a section of it—should talk of taking some retaliatory ' measure against Australia by revising the existing trade agreement between the twb countries so as .to ipenalise Australia. It is pointed out' that the feaM for the'Ottdwa’agreement \Vas the encouragement of Empire trade, and . it is hoped that nothing frill be done to interfere with tile trading .relations of Australia, and New Zealand. Many. Australians would- rather- see a; greater measure of reciprocal trade between the two countries, and they have urged a revision of the agreement in such a manner that trade, would be facilitated instead of hampered, as New Zealand manufacturers would have it.

COUNTRY PAHTY’S ATTITUDE. The Country Party in Australia is not satisfied with the -Ottawa-agreement for the reason that if*. provides for no reductions in the tariff. Most o'f the Country Party men are free traders, so they attack the agreement 6'a hubs totally opposite to those chosen by the Labour Party. The Country Party, tHsaefiore, is “intensely disappointed” because there has not been a substantial deduction -in duty on the things they need. Its outlook seems to be a purely selfish one. It is to be feared that the country people in Australia have little sympathy with the city folk, and one is surely excused for wondering how the country would exist .at. all if it were not for the great cities, with their huge demand fbr everything the country produce? and sells. There may be a great deal of truth in the statement that the Country Party refused to join the Lyons Cabinet because it was convinced that it could secure more if it remained outside.

An increase of 2s 6d a head in the value of every sheep and lamb in Austi'alia and New Zealand in a good season of big export was predicted by Mr W. Angliss, one of the consultants of the Ottawa delegation, as an outcome of the meat concessions given by Britain under itha agreement. If an unfavourable .season was 'experienced, there would, of course, be no such increase *n values. "This new meat agreement,” said Mr Angliss, “'is going to be a great thing both for Australia and New Zealand. When the restrictions by Britain on the import, of (South American "meat are lii full force, they will mean' |' that Rightly more than 2,ooo,ooo’fewer carcases'of sheep and lamb can be shipped from South America to the United Kingdom than at the present time. Those restrictions wi'l apply fully in April, 1934. As compared with the twelve mont.is ended December, 1930. the restrictions will mean that 3,100,000 fewer carcases of sheep and lambs will be imported by Britain from South America.” .Mr Augliss eaid he regarded the agreement as better than a tariff of one penny a lb on mutton and lamb.